Thoughts on Maletagate
Maletagate (already in full force at Wikipedia!) is moving right along. What has interested me in particular is the Venezuelan government’s reaction.
The Minister of the Interior said that it was part of the “empire’s (US) objective of trying to tarnish and question President Chavez foreign policy."
The Energy Minister said it was the media’s fault: ``I want to alert the people and our workers, so we don't let them manipulate us.”
The Foreign Minister echoed the media argument, saying there are “elements” to suggest it is a plot against Chávez.
These reactions just seem so unnecessary and even self-defeating. Why not keep it at “we’re investigating”? I have Nixon on the brain (I just read Woodward’s The Secret Man) but Nixon consistently did the same, to the point that not even his supporters believed him. Everything—even the things he was guilty of—was blamed on the "liberal media."
Chávez has a scandal on his hands, and it might not end up being a disaster, or tied to him in any way personally. But even if you really believe they are at fault, it just seems like blaming it on the media and foreigners makes it look worse, not better.
7 comments:
"But even if you really believe they are at fault, it just seems like blaming it on the media and foreigners makes it look worse, not better."
You would think, but sadely that is not the case. Truely, Chavez is a teflon man (the money helps a lot).
It's the same strategy they have been using for 8 years now - blame the empire and the media, then change subject so people forget the scandal (last night Chavez is rushing the constitutional reform).
Mmmmm, them brownies taste good, don't they, Greg?
Here's the first quote --from the story to which you link-- by Venezuela's Minister of Interior.
“Venezuela announced last Saturday through a release from PDVSA its willingness to collaborate with the judicial investigation and announced an administrative inquiry into events”, said Interior minister Pedro Carreño.
You then misquote Carreño's later statement. The report reads as follows: The Venezuelan minister of Interior went on to criticize the media for the coverage of the incident which he added could be easily linked to the “empire’s (US) objective of trying to tarnish and question President Chavez's foreign policy”.
Greg hears: The Minister of the Interior said that it was part of the "empire’s (US) objective of trying to tarnish and question President Chavez's foreign policy."
The problem with you, Greg, is that you're just downright dishonest. You can't even quote a Venezuelan official in an honest manner.
To say that the case COULD BE a set-up linked to the “empire’s objective of trying to tarnish and question President Chavez foreign policy” is distinct from saying that it IS "part of the 'empire’s (US) objective of trying to tarnish and question President Chavez's foreign policy.'"
It's not just that it is difficult to trust the capitalist media on questions about Venezuela. It's also very difficult to trust opportunistic academics like yourself, as this post indicates.
Greg,
You see Nixon; I see Bush.
The current Maletagate reminds me in some ways of the whole AG mess we have here with Gonzalez. Everyone can see the wrongdoing, the whole situation would likely be resolved if the president would just remove the people responsible, but the president is too stubborn in his ways to do what would be both the easy and the right thing to do.
Maybe we should use a composite: stay loyal like Bush, blame the media like Nixon, yet remain like teflon a la Reagan.
Where's the news here? Leftist/socialist/communist government officials stealing from the people to fill their own bank accounts. That's a tried-and-true formula that has worked for decades all over the world.
They just canceled the emission of the "Bonos del Sur". If that's not evidence of poor handling of the situation by Venezuelan officers, what would it be?
More thoughts regarding the MALETÍN-GATE... There are who possibilities: A) The $800K rightfully belong to Mr. Antonini (frankly, he does appear to be quite a wealthy guy). B) The money doesn't belong to Mr. Antonini. A) If it belongs to him, and he can prove it, then he simply broke both Venezuelan and Argentinean tax laws by transporting the money undeclared country to country and is legally accountable on that specific count. B) If on the other hand the $800K do not belong to him and he can't justify its possession, then it will be assumed that he came by it through illegal means, and it'll be a case of whether he decides (or dares) to rat on his wealthy partners in crime, whoever they are (there IS more than suspect group, you know), and he'll have to be able to prove whatever he declares about it. Quite a bad spot. I can't wait to see how this pans out.
Post a Comment